Tempers flare over Buttes plan

The Sutter Buttes pop up seemingly out of nowhere amid agricultural valley land that makes up Sutter County, a prominent local reminder of the volcanic activity that has shaped and formed the Pacific Rim.

But something else has a habit of popping up when talking about the land in and around the Buttes: controversy.

“Any time the board even talks about the Sutter Buttes for the last 30 years, the public admonishes you for talk about doing anything within or near the Buttes,” Supervisor Dan Silva said.

And the area around Southridge Golf Club and the Food Processing, Agriculture and Recreation Combined District, or FPARC, west of Sutter, is likely the most controversial.

On Tuesday night, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors will decide whether Southridge owners Pramod and Lucy Kumar can take 897 acres of land they own on two parcels surrounding the golf course and split it into 13 parcels, varying in size from 21 to 82 acres.

The proposal, which went through the county’s planning commission in October without opposition,will likely not get the same treatment at the supervisors’ meeting. The Middle Mountain Foundation, a land-use watchdog group that seeks to maintain a pristine, natural version of the Buttes, is pressing opposition to the land split, saying it could trigger massive development around the landmark.

“From a Middle Mountain standpoint, this is a development within the Buttes,” said Cory Wilkins, the foundation’s executive director.

“Obviously, our mission is to protect the Buttes.”

Wilkins has sent a message to the foundation’s e-mail list, which he said has 1,700 subscribers, asking them to voice their opposition to the plan.

The Kumars said they have no plans to develop the parcels at this time - which is what they also said when a similar parcel split was shot down on a 3-2 vote of supervisors four years ago.

“My intentions are no different than what we have done with the property over the last 19 years,” Pramod Kumar said.

Those opposing the parcel split, such as Middle Mountain, are mostly out-of-towners who want to secure a personal lock on access to the Buttes, he said - if not for other reasons.

“I think these people opposing it are a bunch of racists and hypocrites,” Kumar said.

Wilkins said such accusations are false and personally offensive.

Past influences on present?

When the parcel split was proposed to the planning commission, staff recommended denial of the project, because 11 of the proposed parcels do not front a county road.

But on a 4-0 vote, the planning commission determined that the parcel shape was unique enough, and there was a precedent sent to grant the Kumars a variance and approve the project.

The argument, raised by Commissioner Gabrial Singh, is that the parcels are unusually shaped because the golf course cuts through them. The course is a community resource and would be harmed if the parcel splits were redrawn to comply with frontage requirements.

Singh also said there was a previous precedent set when housing was allowed to be developed around Rio La Paz Golf Club in Nicolaus.

Wilkins doesn’t agree with Singh’s reasoning, saying the county’s general plan calls for the Buttes to be preserved as an agricultural, cultural, historical and ecological resource.

“Rio La Paz isn’t protected by a general plan that states they’ll save whatever is around Rio La Paz,” he said. “This is a different animal, it’s in the Sutter Buttes, which makes it completely different than Rio La Paz.”

Kumar said in order to comply with the frontage requirement, roads would have to be built through the course’s first, second, third and possibly fifth holes. It would be difficult to reconfigure the course for that, he said.

“What happens to the 25 or so jobs we provide while we’re doing this?” he said. “What happens to Sutter High, who plays golf? What happens to all the people who play golf here?”

Adding to the questions is that the parcels lie within FPARC, a 25-year-old type of zoning in the county with a unique history all its own.

FPARC was created by a public vote with November 1982’s Measure A, expanding upon agricultural uses of the land surrounding it and allowing for additional recreational uses and industrial food processing. That was a controversial move in itself; A look at editions of the Appeal-Democrat in October of that year show full-page ads denouncing the plan as a “blank check” for Buttes development, while other full-page ads said the zone would present a “significant contribution” to the county’s economy.

The 1,800 acres was primarily intended for two projects: A golf course and a tomato processing plant.

But today, there is only Southridge, because the plant was never built.

Try, try again

This isn’t the first time the Kumars have sought to change the area around Southridge.

In 1990, while the golf course was being constructed, another Measure A proposed building a resort hotel and 625 residences around the course. The measure was soundly defeated.

Four years ago, the Kumars requested to split 871 acres around the course into 12 parcels. The split was approved by the planning commission but was appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

The split was then rejected on a 3-2 vote. Casey Kroon, Dennis Nelson and Larry Munger were against the parcel split, while Jim Whiteaker and Dan Silva were for it.

The Kumars said in 2003 the split was for estate planning purposes. The current split proposal is for the same reason, Pramod Kumar said.

“I think one needs to resolve one’s financial affairs before someone croaks,” he said with a laugh.

But he’s not laughing about Middle Mountain’s opposition to the plan. Kumar thinks the foundation wants to have a “monopoly” on the Buttes, limiting access to its guided tours into the mountain formation, for which the foundation charges between $30 and $35 a person.

“All the Middle Mountain Foundation wants to do is put a toll gate to the entrance of the Buttes ... If I develop, I will provide public access,” he said.

Wilkins denied the claim.

“That really has nothing to do with it,” he said. “We want to keep the Buttes as pristine as possible.”

Kumar took the allegations against Middle Mountain - “90 percent of them are from Sacramento and Nevada City and Yuba County,” he said - even further, claiming racial bias because neighboring landowners such as Richard Wilson and David Lanza split parcels without the foundation raising such vocal opposition. He questioned the racial makeup of the foundation’s membership.

“It’s amazing that a bunch of small-knit people like that are able to organize a case against the name Kumar,” he said.

Wilkins emphatically denied the claim as “blatantly false,” saying Kumar is “grabbing for straws at this point.”

“I think that’s downright almost slanderous for him to accuse us of that when we’ve worked with many members of the East Indian community,” he said. “One of our advisers is from the East Indian community.”

Supervisors say they’ve received various amounts of communication on the issue. Whiteaker, for example, has received about 20 e-mails and five phone calls on the subject.

“A majority of the people are being misinformed and they feel that it’s going to bring about major development in the Buttes,” Whiteaker said. “That’s simply not the case.”

Silva said most of his phone calls have been from people “opposing it that don’t have anything to do with it.”

Supervisor Larry Montna said he hasn’t received many calls about the project, but callers were generally opposed. But he feels that people have the right to touch, feel and smell the Buttes.

“Every time Pramod comes in with Southridge for something, everybody is up in arms about it,” Montna said.

In contrast, Supervisor Stan Cleveland said most citizens talking to him have been in support of the split.

In even further contrast, Munger, the supervisor who represents the district the parcels are in, said he hadn’t received any phone calls about it.

“Even out in the community, nobody’s said anything,” he said.

Finger-pointing and future concerns aside, the two sides forming over the parcel split hope supervisors will see things their way.

“It’s not that Middle Mountain is opposed to growth or development,” Wilkins said. “It’s just that this is in the wrong place. There are many, many places where development is appropriate and smart for Sutter County.”

“I don’t want to compromise any of our rights,” Kumar said. “Future or present.”

Appeal-Democrat reporter Robert LaHue can be reached at 749-4713. You may e-mail him at rlahue@appealdemocrat.com